Tuesday, December 7, 2010

In Obama's speech today, he all but declared proudly that he is not, in fact, a leader. But rather, he proudly applauds himself for being an outstanding conciliator, compromiser, negotiator. He glowingly praises himself for the smattering of weak and neutered legislation that barely got passed, even with significant Democratic majorities, and even more significant acquiescence to Republicans in each and every case. As he grandstands, scolding the progressives (because that worked so well for Democrats before the mid-term elections), he all but guarantees he will be a one-term President.

With respect to the bottom line, in terms of what my core principles are, yeah look, I've got a bunch of lines in the sand. Not making tax cuts for the wealthy permanent, that was a line in the sand. Making sure that the things that most impact middle-class families and low income families, that those were preserved, that is a line in the sand. I would not have agreed to a deal, which, by the way some in Congress were talking about, of just a two-year extension on the Bush tax cuts and one year of unemployment insurance, but meanwhile all the other provisions of earned income tax credit or other important breaks for middle class families, like the college tax credit, that those had gone away, just because they had Obama's name attached to them instead of Bush's name attached to them.

So this notion that somehow we are willing to compromise too much reminds me of the debate that we had during health care. This is the public option debate all over again. So I pass a signature piece of legislation where we finally get health care for all Americans, something that Democrats had been fighting for, for a hundred years - but because there was a provision in there that they didn't get, that would have affected maybe a couple million people, even though we got health insurance for 30 million people, and the potential for lower premiums for a hundred million people, that somehow that was a sign of weakness and compromise.

Now, if that's the standard by which we are measuring success or core principles, then let's face it, we will never get anything done. People will have the satisfaction of having a purist position, and no victories for the American people. And we will be able to feel good about ourselves, and sanctimonious about how pure our intensions are and how tough we are. And in the meantime the American people are still seeing themselves not able to get health insurance because of a pre-existing condition, or not being able to pay their bills because their unemployment insurance ran out. That can't be the measure of how we think about our public service. That can't be the measure of what it means to be a Democrat.

This is a big, diverse country. Not everybody agrees with us. I know that shocks people. You know, the New York Times editorial page does not permeate across all of America - neither does the Wall Street Journal editorial page. Most Americans, they're just trying to figure out how to go about their lives, and how can we make sure that our elected officials are looking out for us? And that means because it's a big, diverse country, and people have a lot of complicated positions, it means that in order to get stuff done we're gonna compromise.

This is why FDR, when he started Social Security, it only affected widows and orphans. You did not qualify. And yet now it is something that really helps a lot of people. When Medicare started it was a small program, it grew. Under the criteria that you just set out, each of those were betrayals of some abstract ideal.

This country was founded on compromise. I couldn't go through the front door of this country's founding. And you know if we were really thinking about ideal positions, we wouldn't have a Union.

And so, my job is to make sure that we have a North Star out there - what is helping the American people live out of their lives? You know what is giving them more opportunity, what is growing the economy, what is making us more competitive. And at any given juncture there're gonna be times where my preferred option, what I'm absolutely positive is right, I can't get done. And so then my question is, does it make sense for me to tack a little bit this way, or tack a little bit that way, because I'm keeping my eye on the long term, and the long fight, not my day to day news cycle, but where am I going over the long term?

And I don't think there's a single Democrat out there, who if they looked at where we started when I came into office and look at where we are now, would say that somehow we have not moved in the direction that I promised. Take a tally, look at what I promised during the campaign. There's not a single thing that I said that I would do that I have not either done or tried to do. And if I have not gotten it done yet, I'm still trying to do it.

And so, to my Democratic friends, what I'd suggest is, let's make sure that we understand this is a long game, this is not a short game.

And to my Republican friends, I would suggest, I think this is a good agreement, because I know they're swallowing some things that they don't like as well, and I'm looking forward to seeing them on the field of competition over the next two years.

Instead of excoriating the very people that got him into office in the first place, Obama needs to look hard in the mirror and see just who is being sanctimonious. North Star? Really?

As for patting himself on the back for what he's accomplished since he's been in office, a handful of watered-down victories, attained only by overly compromising or totally capitulating to Republican demands is hardly anything to be proud of.

Health Insurance? Who benefits from that the most? Insurance companies do, because the people are FORCED to buy corporate health insurance, but there are no checks on rising premiums, or on what hospitals, pharmaceuticals companies, or healthcare providers can charge, or even any guarantees that the coverage will pay out when needed. This might have been a small tactical victory, but Big Business won the long game here, because the idea that the government is not on the side of the people, but on the side of business is what the people will remember.

Closing Guantanomo? Still open, but lets not forget Bagram.

Ending torture? Maybe only in some other countries, but not all, certainly not this country.

The stimulus? Uh, that was George W. Bush.

GM bailout? I'll give him that one.

BP? Obama authorized more offshore and deepwater wells after the disaster in the Gulf.

Ending DADT? That remains to be seen, but it won't be because of HIS leadership. Repeated appeals and challenges in court against victims of DADT are actions that run counter to the lip service we've been getting.

Create jobs? Let's just forget about the spike due to census workers, unemployment has barely moved a percentage point since he took office. But Wall St. is making windfall profits, but businesses aren't hiring, because people aren't buying.

If Obama sees these as examples of his leadership, of his being a "North Star", he's more delusional and out of touch than I ever would have guessed. In each one of these examples, Obama has sold out the idea that government can be a force for for good to the idea that Big Business comes first at the expense of the people. By allowing the Republicans philosophic victory over the idea that tax cuts are good, Obama has decimated the progressive idea that taxes are needed to keep this country - namely its economy - running.

Obama says this is a long game, not a short game, but it is painfully evident that he cannot see that he got beat at the long game by the Republicans. This was not a short-term battle for extra money for the wealthy, it was a war over ideas - of the idea that the rich deserve to get richer at the expense of the poor and the middle-class. Not only did Obama not "tie" in battle, he has all but assured that he lost the war for progressives. Philosophies are ideas, and ideas are power.

Obama has proven that he has no idea, and that he is utterly devoid of power, at least when compared to Republicans.

Sunday, December 5, 2010

David Samuels has a bold and illuminating article in The Atlantic, which does an excellent job at calling out other so-called journalists for their shameful cowardice in their responses to the Wikileaks exposing of US diplomatic cables. The closing paragraph is telling:

In a memorandum entitled "Transparency and Open Government" addressed to the heads of Federal departments and agencies and posted on WhiteHouse.gov, President Obama instructed that "Transparency promotes accountability and provides information for citizens about what their Government is doing." The Administration would be wise to heed his words -- and to remember how badly the vindictive prosecution of Daniel Ellsberg ended for the Nixon Administration. And American reporters, Pulitzer Prizes and all, should be ashamed for joining in the outraged chorus that defends a burgeoning secret world whose existence is a threat to democracy.

Apart from the sad irony that Obama's memorandum is completely at odds with his administration's actions and statements, this closing paragraph makes an important point. So many of our news media's reporters and many in the American public alike should be ashamed by their cowardice. Rather than buy into the false argument that our government's exceptionally "secret" activities are somehow making us safer, they should wake up and realize how dangerous that sort of unchecked secrecy is to our democracy. That more journalists and more Americans have not actively stepped forward to defend Julian Assange and Wikileaks is as frightening as it is disgusting.